cops n 'OCers in wisconsin

deanf said:

I would like (to be part of) an organization that can be called upon in the event of a situation similar to what happened in WI: staff that can be immediately summoned to respond with press releases and other forms of public education, fact finding (FOIA), hosting/publishing of electonic media, and legal action.

I would pay money to be part of such a thing.

Click to expand...

Exactly! The Wisconsin Carry group has been on top of this current Madison 5 incident from the initial phone call DURING the event.

Madison alder declares constitutional freedoms to be ‘childish’

Our site administrator has written a nice article about this...



Madison alder declares constitutional freedoms to be ‘childish’
September 25th, 2010 3:39 pm CT
By John Pierce, Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner
________________

The ‘Madison 5’ incident continues to spread ripples across Wisconsin as the city and the police department struggle to defend their actions.

Background

Last Wednesday I wrote about the fact that the Wisconsin courts have not only held that a person may not be charged with obstruction for refusing to identify themselves but that "no reasonable person could believe that the obstruction statute includes within its terms persons who fail to identify themselves. Nor could a reasonable person determine that any other statute authorizes the arrest of persons for refusing to state their names. ... Hence, the deputies in this case are not entitled to qualified immunity." Henes v. Morrissey, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
I also wrote about the fact that, facing suits against both the city and the individual officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of rights under color of law), the obstruction charges were quickly dropped. However, in a publicly released memo which appears clearly designed to have a chilling effect on the free exercise of rights in Madison, police chief Wray announced that all five law-abiding citizens who were open carrying that night would be charged with disorderly conduct.

According to the memo, these charges are based solely upon the proposition that the citizen who called police was ‘disturbed’ by seeing the men exercising their rights. Mike Stollenwerk, DC Gun Rights Examiner, immediately demonstrated the falsity of this argument in his Friday article in which he included the 911 call from the supposedly ‘disturbed’ citizen wherein she stated that “there’s no problem and it’s no emergency . . .I feel bad then, if they’re not doing anything wrong then it’s my mistake.”

The legal analysis

Ultimately, when the dust settles from these five cases, Madison will have lost badly … and so will the taxpayers of the city. Even a first year law student will tell you that one cannot be charged with a crime for the peaceful exercise of a constitutional right even if a citizen is unreasonably fearful of such an exercise (which was not the case here). And in the case of Wisconsin, the right to bear arms is a state constitutional right backed up by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which was held to be incorporated against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in the recently decided case of McDonald v. Chicago.

Amazingly, in his memo, Chief Wray states that “the city’s disorderly conduct statute does not require an actual disturbance to take place, only that the conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.” And while that may be true of the statute, local statutes do not operate in a vacuum, nor do they have the power to abrogate constitutional rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically noted that ‘constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise.’ Bachellar v. Maryland 1969 WL 120235. And as a general constitutional principle, such a statute would be held to be unconstitutionally void-for-vagueness in any case, both lacking an intent requirement and failing to give adequate notice of what conduct is thus prohibited.

Going forward

A number of Wisconsin citizens have apparently attempted to start a dialog with the Madison City Council in an effort to achieve a legislative solution to the threats by Chief Wray to arrest all open carriers for disorderly conduct. And while such an effort is one which I normally recommend, it seems as if the City Council is just as hostile to civil rights as the police department but with considerably less professionalism.

In one example, a Wisconsin citizen named Brent Hancock emailed his concerns about the recently released memo to the Madison alders indicating that he would no longer shop in Madison until the issue was addressed. Madison alder Lauren Cnare (District 3) responded with the following:
________________

Have a good time staying at home. While legal, it's inappropriate and aggressive to pack your little pistols in public places. We won't miss you or the childish displays of constitutional freedoms.

Lauren Cnare - District 3 Alder
________________

Amazingly enough, the writer of this childish taunt is a public relations and communications professional in her day job.

I must ask … Is this the kind of person the citizens of Madison want representing them? After all, anyone who would speak of constitutional freedoms with such vitriol and bigotry is clearly unworthy of public office.


District 3 Alder Lauren Cnare

ORIGINAL ARTICLE here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...clares-constitutional-freedoms-to-be-childish

I am all for a WA state carry group. I have done 4+ years of nonprofit work (where I lived off donations). I do it for God first and country second. I think in the political time we are in right now, we need to be organized or we will lose our rights quickly.

I am in 100%

I would be willing to join as a leader to help lead. I don't, unfortunately, have time to be the MAIN guy. Though I played that role in my 4 years of ministry, I am too busy to take it on right now. I can and will, however, help out in a major role should we decide anything. It sounds like JT has the most experience in gauging this type of activity, so let us know what your wisdom foresees, and we shall take it from there!

Joe~

I would like to specifically point out that the man cited for obstruction of justice was not only cited for something similar in Racine, WI earlier... he settled out of court with the city of Racine for $10,000.

Someone please explain to me how his $10,000 paycheck from the city advances the cause.

killchain said:

I would like to specifically point out that the man cited for obstruction of justice was not only cited for something similar in Racine, WI earlier... he settled out of court with the city of Racine for $10,000.

Someone please explain to me how his $10,000 paycheck from the city advances the cause.

Click to expand...

Because it allows for him to be able to afford a lawyer and further go after these type of people???

(just playing Devil's advocate here...although it is possible...probably not probable though...)

killchain said:

I would like to specifically point out that the man cited for obstruction of justice was not only cited for something similar in Racine, WI earlier... he settled out of court with the city of Racine for $10,000.

Someone please explain to me how his $10,000 paycheck from the city advances the cause.

Click to expand...

Because when cities start having to PAY for the misdeeds of their officials, it makes the voters take notice.

Someone please explain to me how his $10,000 paycheck from the city advances the cause.

Click to expand...

It doesn't. Why would anyone think it did? It compensated him for a tort committed against him.

killchain said:

I would like to specifically point out that the man cited for obstruction of justice was not only cited for something similar in Racine, WI earlier... he settled out of court with the city of Racine for $10,000.

Someone please explain to me how his $10,000 paycheck from the city advances the cause.

Click to expand...

The Wisconsin OCer increased the ability of other's to OC by creating a negative incentive for the city to harass OCers. He may have felt that he didn't need to go to court to make his point, if the city was willing to concede that they were wrong at any point of the process, he has accomplished his goal. They will instruct their PD to change their behavior to prevent further payouts.

killchain said:

I would like to specifically point out that the man cited for obstruction of justice was not only cited for something similar in Racine, WI earlier... he settled out of court with the city of Racine for $10,000.

Someone please explain to me how his $10,000 paycheck from the city advances the cause.

Click to expand...

Actually, to be technical, he settled IN COURT. I do not know the technicalities of the Federal Judiciary but they offered a settlement for $10K and an admission of guilt. The way it was explained to me is that if the offer was rejected and 'we' won a judgement of anything less than $10K, 'we' would be responsible for the cities defense costs since they made a 'reasonable' offer.

So.... the $10K didn't let Racine off the hook. For all intents and purposes, it has the same force of law as a loss.

I am one of the 5 who was cited with Disorderly Conduct. A Federal Lawsuit is being filed today regarding the Chief of Police's memo. Once the Disorderly Conduct tickets are either dismissed or we are found not guilty (foregone conclusion), another Federal Lawsuit will be filed for violation of our civil rights in forcing identification and false charge of DC.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:

Actually, to be technical, he settled IN COURT. I do not know the technicalities of the Federal Judiciary but they offered a settlement for $10K and an admission of guilt. The way it was explained to me is that if the offer was rejected and 'we' won a judgement of anything less than $10K, 'we' would be responsible for the cities defense costs since they made a 'reasonable' offer.

So.... the $10K didn't let Racine off the hook. For all intents and purposes, it has the same force of law as a loss.

I am one of the 5 who was cited with Disorderly Conduct. A Federal Lawsuit is being filed today regarding the Chief of Police's memo. Once the Disorderly Conduct tickets are either dismissed or we are found not guilty (foregone conclusion), another Federal Lawsuit will be filed for violation of our civil rights in forcing identification and false charge of DC.

Click to expand...

Keep up the good work and keep us posted. We'll be following along.

Rather than start a new thread

Good news for the legality of recording encounters

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html

Slightly off topic, but definitely a consideration for OC